Lets Discuss the Press

[smoke_em06]

How is that? They can push a story and that is it. They cannot remove anyone from office. If they could, GWB would have been long gone.

Thats just because they can't think of a reason to impeach him.

 

[therealUT]

How is that? They can push a story and that is it. They cannot remove anyone from office. If they could, GWB would have been long gone.

Voters rely on the media for information. One of the only reasons GWB won in '04 was because the National Guard memo story, that Dan Rather broke, was uncovered as a fraud soon enough. If that had not happened, then John Kerry would be president today.

 

[orange+white=heaven]

Nice analogy and I think you're right on.

Now for the next "ought to" discussion. If the press prizes objectivity, shouldn't they resist the personal disdain/dislike they have for the admin and make all efforts to not treat them any differently than any other admin? Human nature says it would be tough to do so. Is their "world view" shaded by the attitude of the WH?

An attempt at an analogy. It is often suggested that Gitmo is such a problem because the US is using tactics that are beneath her. While other countries, enemies may not have these restrictions we must because we are a shining example. The WH and the press should have different tactics. The WH is a political entity that has an agenda and a vested interested in pursuing that agenda. The press should have no policy agenda. Shouldn't they then be the adult in this battle? Shouldn't resist the urge to put a little extra scrutiny here because of attitude towards them?

You're now pulling me back to an old conversation we've already had Bham.
The difficult to seperate issues of reporting versus analysis, and the burden of today's consumer to take in and then filter fact from spin.

Ojectivity is the brass ring. These days it is undeniably harder to reach.
The mitigating factor is you.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Where does the gov't tracking my financial transaction and listening in on phone calls infringe on my freedoms? It in no way affects my life, liberty, or my ability to pursue happiness. Also, your paranoid delusions about the gov't are just as frightening, if not more. There is never going to be any proof of what is not happening. So, you will always be able to state: There is no proof that they are ONLY doing this...

Also, again, you jump to some severe conclusions, and illogically so. I stated that the information they are obtaining can not be used in courts. Therefore, the gov't cannot haul off my neighbors as long as they are US citizens. If they are not US citizens, and they have been conversing with terrorist organizations or funding them, then I have no problem with them being hauled off. If you are not a US citizen, then you should probably live very cautiously in this country anyway, and do whatever you can to stay off the radar.

So I guess something called the Fourth Amendment and the numerous acts against citizens from the British in the 1700's was jumping to severe conclusions. They should have trusted their government. Watergate? Who cares what Nixon was doing right? Iran Contra? Big deal. FDR packing the courts? Nah.

The issue is that the Executive Branch is limited in what is can and cannot do. It does not have unlimited power and reach. There are constitutional safeguards that should apply and clearly are being ignored in GWB's case. Clearly FISA has spelled out what can and cannot be done. But clearly GWB doesn't think he has to abide by those restraints. He chooses to ignore his clearly stated powers and scope.

How can you say this information cannot be used in courts? There is a case ongoing now where the defendants sued to get the evidence fully disclosed but the lower courts said that due to national security reasons the evidence cannot be fully disclosed. Clearly this was obtained through one of these secret programs.

Obviously you missed the part about how these programs DO check on US citizens. They monitor all calls and transatcions regardless of citizenship. If a call is placed going to a terrorist overseas, do you honestly think there is time to say check this guy's citizenship to see if we can keep recording? The call will be recorded. There are numerous US citizens in jail now in these sweeps.

You're clearly living in a delusional world if you think that US citizens are not targeted in these calls and arrests. It is fact and happens quite frequently. And to just say that you have nothing to worry about so it's ok is quite scary.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Thats just because they can't think of a reason to impeach him.

I didn't know impeaching was the only method of removing one from office. What of the GOP Congress?

 

[CSpindizzy]

If that had not happened, then John Kerry would be president today.

So you're saying Rather cost Kerry the election? You give him far more credit than he deserves. Kerry lost because he ran a pathetic campaign and let the GOP pummel him unopposed. He came across as weak and passive. Not something many people at the time wanted in a President.

 

[smoke_em06]

I didn't know impeaching was the only method of removing one from office. What of the GOP Congress?

I think your still dizzy from spinning.

 

[therealUT]

So I guess something called the Fourth Amendment and the numerous acts against citizens from the British in the 1700's was jumping to severe conclusions. They should have trusted their government. Watergate? Who cares what Nixon was doing right? Iran Contra? Big deal. FDR packing the courts? Nah.

The issue is that the Executive Branch is limited in what is can and cannot do. It does not have unlimited power and reach. There are constitutional safeguards that should apply and clearly are being ignored in GWB's case. Clearly FISA has spelled out what can and cannot be done. But clearly GWB doesn't think he has to abide by those restraints. He chooses to ignore his clearly stated powers and scope.

How can you say this information cannot be used in courts? There is a case ongoing now where the defendants sued to get the evidence fully disclosed but the lower courts said that due to national security reasons the evidence cannot be fully disclosed. Clearly this was obtained through one of these secret programs.

Obviously you missed the part about how these programs DO check on US citizens. They monitor all calls and transatcions regardless of citizenship. If a call is placed going to a terrorist overseas, do you honestly think there is time to say check this guy's citizenship to see if we can keep recording? The call will be recorded. There are numerous US citizens in jail now in these sweeps.

You're clearly living in a delusional world if you think that US citizens are not targeted in these calls and arrests. It is fact and happens quite frequently. And to just say that you have nothing to worry about so it's ok is quite scary.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In a war against Islamic terrorists, what part of listening in on phone calls and tracking financial transactions involving known terrorists, is unreasonable?

 

[therealUT]

So you're saying Rather cost Kerry the election? You give him far more credit than he deserves. Kerry lost because he ran a pathetic campaign and let the GOP pummel him unopposed. He came across as weak and passive. Not something many people at the time wanted in a President.

I am stating the Rather almost won the election for Kerry, until the report was exposed as a fraud.

 

[volinbham]

You're now pulling me back to an old conversation we've already had Bham.
The difficult to seperate issues of reporting versus analysis, and the burden of today's consumer to take in and then filter fact from spin.

Ojectivity is the brass ring. These days it is undeniably harder to reach.
The mitigating factor is you.

I would say it goes just a bit further than reporting vs. analysis. I think it also goes to deciding what to report as in the case of the terrorist financing surveillance. Choosing to run that story wasn't spin or analysis. I can't help but believe that the editor at the NYT factored in his personal views of the WH in deciding to report the story. The countervailing pleas from both sides of the aisle and others (e.g. 9/11 commission guys) was given less weight than the opportunity to "expose" the WH.

 

[CSpindizzy]

In a war against Islamic terrorists, what part of listening in on phone calls and tracking financial transactions involving known terrorists, is unreasonable?

Um...when they have no checks and balances. When warrants are not issued. When courts that are designed to oversee and approve such warrants are completely ignored. I guess the whole concept of warrants is overrated to you?

 

[orange+white=heaven]

I would say it goes just a bit further than reporting vs. analysis. I think it also goes to deciding what to report as in the case of the terrorist financing surveillance. Choosing to run that story wasn't spin or analysis. I can't help but believe that the editor at the NYT factored in his personal views of the WH in deciding to report the story. The countervailing pleas from both sides of the aisle and others (e.g. 9/11 commission guys) was given less weight than the opportunity to "expose" the WH.

Still, if you're assesment of the Times' motive for running the story is correct(I'll take no position,I have no knowledge), you were able to factor that knowledge into, and weight appropriately, your own assessment of the story.

I can see where this position would sound like a cop out that excuses the Times. I would only say that I really do have a great deal of faith in Americans' abilities to sense the relative gravity of that which is placed before them. It is almost innate, but we are really quite good at it.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I would say it goes just a bit further than reporting vs. analysis. I think it also goes to deciding what to report as in the case of the terrorist financing surveillance. Choosing to run that story wasn't spin or analysis. I can't help but believe that the editor at the NYT factored in his personal views of the WH in deciding to report the story. The countervailing pleas from both sides of the aisle and others (e.g. 9/11 commission guys) was given less weight than the opportunity to "expose" the WH.

Name a reporter who does not factor personal views into their work. Reporters pick and choose their stories. Editors pick and choose stories to report on. Editors often strike out or add at their leisure. Just because personal opinions are injected into stories does not make them inaccurate. Politicians inject their own opinions and feelings into laws and actions all the time. Look at the whole Schiavo case. Forget the law or reason. Let's all run off the edge of a cliff over knee-jerk personal reactions.

 

[therealUT]

Um...when they have no checks and balances. When warrants are not issued. When courts that are designed to oversee and approve such warrants are completely ignored. I guess the whole concept of warrants is overrated to you?

During a war, against an enemy...yes! That concept was also foreign to FDR and Lincoln.

 

[CSpindizzy]

During a war, against an enemy...yes! That concept was also foreign to FDR and Lincoln.

So in war, forget the constitution. OK. And since this war will never go away, we will see this continue and more rights eroded in time. The constitution as written is basically dead. We will never see this war end. We will never see these rights handed back. We will just roll over and let it all happen. Then if that is the case, accept that leaks will keep happening as well. Hopefully the people will continue to see this as an outrage and will vote those with this view out.

 

[CSpindizzy]

It's quite scary when a democratic nation fighting autocratic regimes and mindsets resorts to those same tactics to fight that mindset. Irony.

 

[therealUT]

So in war, forget the constitution. OK. And since this war will never go away, we will see this continue and more rights eroded in time. The constitution as written is basically dead. We will never see this war end. We will never see these rights handed back. We will just roll over and let it all happen. Then if that is the case, accept that leaks will keep happening as well. Hopefully the people will continue to see this as an outrage and will vote those with this view out.

Until the Supreme Court rules the following unconstitutional, then you must just live with it:

use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

U.S. Congress
September 18, 2001

 

[volinbham]

Still, if you're assesment of the Times' motive for running the story is correct(I'll take no position,I have no knowledge), you were able to factor that knowledge into, and weight appropriately, your own assessment of the story.

I can see where this position would sound like a cop out that excuses the Times. I would only say that I really do have a great deal of faith in Americans' abilities to sense the relative gravity of that which is placed before them. It is almost innate, but we are really quite good at it.

I agree that the public should/must add the media info to other bits of info they have to draw conclusions.

My critique is more on the "self-policing" of the press or put another way, their instance that they are not biased. If the press (or people in the press) believe they are not biased they're only fooling themselves.

 

[volinbham]

Name a reporter who does not factor personal views into their work. Reporters pick and choose their stories. Editors pick and choose stories to report on. Editors often strike out or add at their leisure. Just because personal opinions are injected into stories does not make them inaccurate. Politicians inject their own opinions and feelings into laws and actions all the time. Look at the whole Schiavo case. Forget the law or reason. Let's all run off the edge of a cliff over knee-jerk personal reactions.

I've never suggested that the stories are inaccurate.

As for politicians injecting their views - they are supposed to. The are elected to represent certain viewpoints. They are not touting their objectivity. They are not denying their bias.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Until the Supreme Court rules the following unconstitutional, then you must just live with it:

Live with leaks as well. Live with a media constantly harping on it.

As I've been told over and over again, just because the SC has not heard something doesn't mean it won't be an issue OR that it is unconstitutional.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I've never suggested that the stories are inaccurate.

As for politicians injecting their views - they are supposed to. The are elected to represent certain viewpoints. They are not touting their objectivity. They are not denying their bias.

And the media doing this is a big deal because? What's so wrong about a biased media? And the personal viewpoint of these people on the Schiavo case was clearly not in sync with the rest of the country. Judging by the poll numbers, hardly anything is.

 

[therealUT]

Live with leaks as well. Live with a media constantly harping on it.

As I've been told over and over again, just because the SC has not heard something doesn't mean it won't be an issue OR that it is unconstitutional.

Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, it is constitutional. You can allege that it violates the constitution all you want, however, almost 5 years have passed since Congress gave GWB that power (which is an awful lot of power) and it has yet to be challenged in court.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

What's so wrong about a biased media?

As long as it is not state run who cares?

 

[therealUT]

And the media doing this is a big deal because? What's so wrong about a biased media? And the personal viewpoint of these people on the Schiavo case was clearly not in sync with the rest of the country. Judging by the poll numbers, hardly anything is.

You sure are obsessed with the Schiavo case...

 

[volinbham]

What's so wrong about a biased media?

Nothing wrong with a biased media per se but:

1) They claim to be objective and self-policing. It's hard to self-police if you can't perform honest introspection.

2) They can make decisions that impact national security (as in the terrorist financing case) eventhough they have no constitutional power to do so. Does it happen often? No. But because of the problem stated in 1) the problem in 2) becomes more of an issue.

Before you put words in my mouth let me say:

I don't think the media is evil, illegal, wrong, lying, communist, etc.

I don't think the media is dangerous

I don't think the media is trying to destroy W

I'm not saying the executive branch should not be held accountable.

I simply think that the "watchdog" mentality of the press can have negative consequences (primarly positive though) and they become too defensive of their objectivity. Perhaps they should apply more of their watchdog tactics on themselves.